Cyber Laws
have been defined as the laws of the Cyber Space. Though Cyber Space
emerged as a border less society with a strong foundation based on
anonymity, pseudonomity and freedom of speech, over the last decade the
nature of Cyber Space particularly from the perspective of regulation has
undergone a sea change.

Today the Cyber World has an estimated population of
6.67 billion bigger than any physical country. If this is recognized as a
borderless society of its own, it is a huge Country bound by technology
with a culture and commerce of its own. However, the physical society has
so far not recognized the possible independent existence of this cyber
world and has always looked at Cyber World of Netizens as a partial
extension of the Physical world of Citizens of different countries. Hence
we continue to create artificial boundaries for Netizens and define a
state of Netizen as linked to a physical state. hence we have Netizens of
India separated from Netizens of USA or another country. This artificial
boundary is created with a mapping of the physical citizenship of the
Netizen.

When Cyber Laws are formulated, they are driven by the
culture of the physical society of the law making state. Hence there are
different Cyber Laws in India as compared to Saudi Arabia or Canada. Some
countries support Privacy more than others and some countries hate
obscenity more than others. Though there are areas of common acceptance,
the different laws supported by different enforcement agencies create
problems of jurisdiction and interpretation which are often creating
barriers to development.

The growth of Internet along with E-Commerce and
E-Governance has already made the e-society exert influence on the
physical society to such an extent that today any Citizen who would like
himself to be away from the Networld cannot do so. He may either chose to
live on the otherside of the digital divide denying himself of all the
advantages of the digital world but with the liabilities arising from the
existence of Cyber Space. For example if a DDOS attack immobilizes his
Bank, he cannot even go to the branch of the Bank in his city and
withdraw cash by the good old cheque across the counter. He cannot
influence a legislation that his Bank should maintain a non cyber
environment to suit his requirements since the Banking laws of the
country has been modified to suit the convenience of those Citizens of
the Country who are also Netizens and who want Internet Banking and
Mobile Banking as part of their privileges.

Thus today’s regulations are being driven by a
community other than the Citizens of the Country. These are the persons
whom we can recognize as a hybrid entity between Citizens and Netizens
who may be appropriately called CiNezens.

While Citizens focus on governance in the Physical
space, Netizens focus on Governance on the Internet Space, this new breed
of CiNezens try to formulate a legal structure which integrates the needs
of both the independent societies.

We often find conflicts between the physical and net
societies particularly when new laws are being framed. For example, while
the net society brings in laws such as “Unique Digital ID for all”,
Privacy practitioners see it as a violation of human rights. While the
net society tries to introduce privacy and proxy registration of the
domain names or supports anonymity on the net, the law enforcement in the
physical society has reasons to frown.

Lack of understanding of this process of emerging
legislation is often the reason for a conflict amongst different sections
of the society. In case we need to bring harmony between the two
societies, bridge the digital divide without burdening of the unwanted
regulations on parts of the society, there is therefore a need to
recognize the existence of CiNezens distinct from Citizens and Netizens.

Ideally it should be the choice of an individual if he
wants to be Citizen alone or chose to be a CiNezen. Probably some would
like to be Netizens alone but it appears that we soon will have laws that
will criminalize adoption of Net Avatars, obtaining e-mail IDs in
different names etc which mean that existence of a Netizen unconnected
with his physical identity is perhaps not an option available to the
society in future.

However whenever we make Cyber Laws, it would be
better if we recognize that different countires may have different
demographic configurations and therefore the laws may have to be
dovetailed to their specific demographic status. For example, a country
like Japan, USA or South Korea with nearly 75% internet penetration can
adopt a Cyber Law which may not be relevant to a Country like India with
a 7% penetration.

When law makers try to force harmony of Cyber Laws by
international conventions and pressures, the demographic differences need
to be taken into account.

In the recent Copenhagen summit on Climate related
regulation there was a recognition of the difficulty in having a single
law for all countries. Similarly, even when we formulate Cyber Laws or
Copyright laws for the digital media, we need to recognize this
difference. For example, if India tries to emulate USA and brings in a
DMCA clone here, then there is a possibility of a conflict. Just as Mr
Jairam Ramesh had the resolve to stand upto the pressures of US in the
Climate negotiations, Mr Kapil Sibal should also show the same
resolve before the Indian Copyright law is amended at the instance of the
global players with commercial interests.

May be..whenever we make laws in future for Cyber
Space we need to question, is it appropriate for the 93 % of the
population to whom Interent has not yet reached? or at least, Is it
designed to be fair to those 93%? Are there any safeguards to prevent the
misapplication of the 7% oriented laws on the 93% population?